Ecohydrological Variation and Multi-Objective Ecological Water Demand of the Irtysh River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Data Sources
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data
3. Methodology
3.1. Analysis of Ecohydrological Change
3.2. Calculation of Ecological Water Demand
3.3. Calculation of the Ecological Lake Level
3.4. Calculation of the Ecological Water Demand of Ulungur Lake
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Variation in Runoff and Ecohydrological Processes
4.1.1. River Flow Variation
4.1.2. Ecohydrological Variation
4.2. Ecological Water Demand of Forest and Grassland in River Valley
4.2.1. Ecological Water Demand
4.2.2. Influence of Ecohydrological Variation and Ecological Conservation
4.3. Ecological Water Level and Demand of the Ulungur Lake
4.3.1. Ecological Water Level
4.3.2. Ecological Water Demand
4.3.3. Ecological Conservation
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- There was a significant decreasing trend in the average river flow of the Irtysh River after the operation of water conservancy projects (confidence interval = 95%). Analysis by the IHA/RVA method showed high alterations to the average flows in July and August, as well as significant changes to the basin eco-hydrological characteristics, indicating a change to the balance of the ecosystem and a decrease in biomass.
- (2)
- This study improved the Penman–Monteith Equation for ecological water demand of valley forests and grasslands by considering water surface evaporation, and the improved method was used to calculate the water demands of valley forests and grasslands during the critical ecological stage (April–September). The total ecological water demand of valley forests and grasslands was 521 million m³, of which 273 million m³ (52.4%) was required in June and July. Ecological regulation based on catchwork irrigation technology is an effective means of mitigating the reduction in flood peaks because of water conservancy projects; it can restore hydrological processes to meet the water demand of valley forests and grasslands and is effective for remediating valley forests and grasslands ecosystems.
- (3)
- This study proposed a habitat control method to calculate the minimum ecological lake level and the lake morphology analysis method to calculate the maximum ecological lake level. These innovations can improve the concepts and methods of ecological lake levels. The minimum ecological water levels for the Burultokay and Jili lakes were 478.66 m and 480.66 m, respectively, whereas the maximum ecological water levels were 482.80 m and 483.20 m, respectively. The threshold of ecological replenishment flows of the Irtysh River to Ulungur Lake under different precipitation conditions were determined according to the water balance principle, and these results can be applied to daily lake management.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Meng, X.; Chang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. Multi-objective hydropower station operation using an improved cuckoo search algorithm. Energy 2018, 168, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Xu, C.Y.; Zhang, Z.X.; Chen, Y.Q. Changes of atmospheric water vapor budget in the Pearl River basin and possible implications for hydrological cycle. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2010, 102, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Zhang, S.; Xu, W.; Wang, B.; Wang, H. Flow regime of the three outlets on the south bank of Jingjiang River, China: An impact assessment of the Three Gorges Reservoir for 2003–2010. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2015, 29, 2047–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziegler, A.D.; Sheffield, J.; Maurer, E.P.; Nijssen, B.; Wood, E.F.; Lettenmaier, D.P. Detection of intensification in global and continental-scale hydrological cycles: Temporal scale of evaluation. J. Clim. 2003, 16, 535–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Wang, D.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X. Investigating the impacts of cascade hydropower development on the natural flow regime in the Yangtze River, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, Z.; Di, L.; Fang, Y.; Hou, A.; Hong, Y. Impacts of climate change and human activities on the flow regime of the dammed Lancang River in Southwest China. J. Hydrol. 2019, 570, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthington, A.H.; Kennen, J.G.; Stein, E.D.; Webb, J.A. Recent advances in environmental flows science and water management-Innovation in the Anthropocene. Freshw. Biol. 2018, 63, 1022–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.Q.; Tao, J. Research on eco-hydrology of river habitat. Water Resour. Prot. 2015, 31, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, X.; Jiang, T. Study of Ecological Instream Flow in Yellow River, Considering the Hydrological Change. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2011, 1, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, M.; Fang, G.H.; Dai, L.H.; Tan, Q.F.; Huang, X.F. Optimizing reservoir operation considering downstream ecological demands of water quantity and fluctuation based on IHA parameters. J. Hydrol. 2021, 600, 126647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, Y.; Ma, Z.; Xie, X.; Huang, T.; Cheng, H. Optimization of ecological reservoir operation rules for a northern river in China: Balancing ecological and socio-economic water use. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 138, 108822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Zhao, R.; Zhang, J.; Yang, D.; Zhou, T. Multi-objective game theory optimization for balancing economic, social and ecological benefits in the Three Gorges Reservoir operation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 085007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gleick, P. Water in crisis: Paths to sustainable water use. Ecol. Apppl. 1998, 8, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, Y.; Leng, J.; Zhao, J.; Na, Y.; Zou, Y.; Yu, B.; Fu, G.; Wu, W. Quantitative calculation and optimized applications of ecological flow based on nature-based solutions. J. Hydrol. 2021, 598, 126216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poff, N.L.; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B.; Karr, J.R. The natural flow regime-a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 1997, 47, 769–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poff, N.L.; Richter, B.D.; Arthington, A.H. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 147–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, J.; Brown, C. Integrated basin flow assessments: Concepts and method development in Africa and South-east Asia. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Qin, T.; Yan, D.; Wang, Y.; Dong, B.; Wang, J.; Nie, H.; He, S.; Liu, S. Classification of instream ecological water demand and crucial values in a semi-arid river basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gibbs, M.S.; Clarke, K.; Taylor, B. Linking spatial inundation indicators and hydrological modelling to improve assessment of inundation extent. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 1298–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Yu, S.; Chen, H.; She, D. Model for defining environmental flow thresholds of spring flood period using abrupt habitat change analysis. Adv. Water Resour. 2010, 21, 567–574. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, X.; Zhang, J.; Song, Y.; Lai, Y. Comparative study on the dynamic calculation method of river ecological water demand. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 569, 012081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baruah, A.; Sarma, A.K. Ecological flow assessment using hydrological and hydrodynamic routing model in Bhogdoi river, India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2021, 7, 2453–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikghalb, S.; Shokoohi, A.; Singh, V.P.; Yu, R. Ecological Regime versus Minimum Environmental Flow: Comparison of Results for a River in a Semi Mediterranean Region. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 585, 4969–4984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Lin, J.; Liu, Y.; Yao, W.; Zhang, D.; Peng, Q.; Qian, S. Refined operation of cascade reservoirs considering fish ecological demand. J. Hydrol. 2022, 607, 127559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.; Xiang, L.; Huang, Y.; Gong, H. Water Quality Restoration with Ecological Water Demand Allocation Regulation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 585, 012072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bo, Q.; Cheng, W. Intelligent Control of Agricultural Irrigation through Water Demand Prediction Based on Artificial Neural Network. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2021, 2021, 7414949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wan, F.; Zhang, F.; Zheng, X.; Xiao, L. Study on ecological water demand and ecological water supplement in Wuliangsuhai Lake. Water 2022, 14, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.; Li, W.; Qiu, J.; Aji, D. Investigation of the safety threshold of eco-environmental water demands for the Bosten Lake wetlands, western China. Quat. Int. 2017, 440, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.L.; Hu, W. Study on off-stream ecological water demand of fu river basin. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 641–642, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.Q.; Guo, J.C.; Tan, J.; Wu, W.; Huang, K.; Bai, Y.; He, L.; Wang, M. Spatial coupling relationship between ecological water demand and landscape pattern in depressions among karst peaks in Guangxi. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2017, 33, 800–805. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, L. Prediction model of ecological environmental water demand based on big data analysis. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, M.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L. Study on ecological scheduling of multi-scale coupling of reservoir group. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017, 48, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, D.S.; Brändle, J.M.; Seliger, C.; Zeiringer, B.; Ferreira, T.; Schmutz, S. Advancing towards functional environmental flows for temperate floodplain rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1089–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, T.D.; Andrieu, H.; Hamel, P. Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: A state of the art. Adv. Water Resour. 2013, 51, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Liu, X.; Jia, Q.; Huang, Y.; Ni, G.; Lu, W. Modeling temporal changes in salinity and fluoride concentration of Lake Ulungur in Xinjiang, China. J. Lake Sci. 2022, 34, 134–141. [Google Scholar]
- Richter, B.D.; Baumgartner, J.V.; Braun, D.P.; Powell, J. A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration within a river network. Regul. Rivers-Res. Manag. 1998, 14, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiau, J.T.; Wu, F.C. Compromise programming methodology for determining instream flow under multiobjective water allocation criteria. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1179–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, R.G.; Pruitt, W.O.; Wright, J.L.; Howell, T.A.; Ventura, F.; Snyder, R.; Itenfisu, D.; Steduto, P.; Berengena, J.; Yrisarry, J.B.; et al. A recommendation on standardized surface resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith method. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 81, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Wang, Q.; Hao, M. Estimation of reference crop evapotranspiration by Chinese pan. Trans. CSAE 2006, 22, 14–17. [Google Scholar]
- Chiew, F.H.S.; Kamaladasa, N.K.; Malano, H.M.; Mcmahon, T.A. Penman-Monteith, FAO-24 reference crop evapotranspiration and class-A pan data in Australia. Agr. Water Man. 1995, 28, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, R.L. Equation for evaporation pan to evapotranspiration conversions. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1992, 118, 977–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oladele, A.G.; Tunde, A.; Japhet, U.; Busola, A.M. Efficiency of small pan evaporimeter in monitoring evapotranspiration under poly-covered house and open-field conditions in a hot, tropical region of Nigeria. J. Hydrol.-Reg. Stud. 2020, 32, 100735. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, L.; Liu, H.; Li, W.; Tang, Z. Evaluation the ecological water demand of Dongting Lake based on ecological hydrology during the storage period. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 446, 032105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, S.; Cui, B.; Yang, Z. A landscape connectivity approach for determining Minimum Ecological Lake level: Implications for lake restoration. Water 2019, 11, 2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, G.; Lin, T.; Guo, H.; Gao, W. New method and application of estimating ecological water level of the Lake Poyang. J. Lake Sci. 2015, 27, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbaspour, M.; Nazaridoust, A. Determination of environmental water requirements of Lake Urmia, Iran: An ecological approach. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2007, 64, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajedipour, S.; Zarei, H.; Oryan, S. Estimation of environmental water requirements via an ecological approach: A case study of Bakhtegan Lake, Iran. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 100, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Chen, M.; Dong, Z. Researches on the calculation methods of the lowest ecological water level of lake. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2004, 24, 2324–2328. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, L.; Wang, F.; Wang, D.; Wang, H. Research on the lowest ecological water level and ecological water quantity of Ulungur Lake. Adv. Water Sci. 2011, 22, 470–478. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Wu, J.; Zeng, H.; Long, M. Changes of Water Resources of the Main Lakes in Inner Mongolia. Arid Zone Res. 2015, 32, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
- Mann, H.B. Nonparametric Tests Against Trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, M.G. Rank Correlation Methods; Griffin: London, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Suen, J.P.; Eheart, J.W. Reservoir management to balance ecosystem and human needs: Incorporating the paradigm of the ecological flow regime. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, W03417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Guo, S. Incorporating ecological requirement into multipurpose reservoir operating rule curves for adaptation to climate change. J. Hydrol. 2013, 498, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, B.D.; Thomas, G.A. Restoring Environmental Flows by Modifying Dam Operations. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, M.; HUANG, Q.; Chang, J.; Huang, S. Large-scale ecological operation research and practice. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 51, 757–773. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Ma, L.; Zeng, H. Water quantity and quality change of Ulungur Lake and its environmental effects. J. Nat. Resour. 2013, 28, 844–853. [Google Scholar]
- Ansper-Toomsalu, A.; Alikas, K.; Nielsen, K.; Tuvikene, L.; Kangro, K. Synergy between Satellite Altimetry and Optical Water Quality Data towards Improved Estimation of Lakes Ecological Status. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indications of HydrologicAlterations | Range of RVA Targets | Mean | D (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | Preconstruction | Postconstruction | ||
January | 8.7 | 18.0 | 12.3 | 10.7 | 16.0 |
February | 7.3 | 16.1 | 12.5 | 11.9 | 4.0 |
March | 7.9 | 18.1 | 13.0 | 19.1 | 52.0 |
April | 35.4 | 86.4 | 61.9 | 40.7 | 40.0 |
May | 143.0 | 253.0 | 181.0 | 54.6 | 64.0 |
June | 144.5 | 512.5 | 408.5 | 166.0 | 16.0 |
July | 78.8 | 293.0 | 202.0 | 32.3 | 88.0 |
August | 38.2 | 113.2 | 68.8 | 21.1 | 76.0 |
September | 20.1 | 83.5 | 48.6 | 20.3 | 4.0 |
October | 25.0 | 45.3 | 38.1 | 22.1 | 64.0 |
November | 13.9 | 32.0 | 23.8 | 22.0 | 8.0 |
December | 8.8 | 18.9 | 12.5 | 16.0 | 4.0 |
1-day minimum | 4.9 | 11.2 | 7.5 | 6.7 | 23.8 |
3-day minimum | 5.9 | 11.3 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 32.0 |
7-day minimum | 6.0 | 11.6 | 9.8 | 7.7 | 20.0 |
30-day minimum | 6.8 | 13.6 | 10.3 | 9.6 | 32.0 |
90-day minimum | 7.7 | 18.3 | 15.2 | 14.4 | 8.0 |
1-day maximum | 328.0 | 778.0 | 632.0 | 448.0 | 20.0 |
3-day maximum | 315.3 | 758.3 | 620.3 | 427.3 | 20.0 |
7-day maximum | 280.6 | 702.0 | 569.3 | 394.4 | 8.0 |
30-day maximum | 199.5 | 539.1 | 477.5 | 245.3 | 16.0 |
90-day maximum | 125.8 | 350.6 | 302.8 | 108.8 | 40.0 |
Base flow index | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 64.0 |
Date of minimum | 51 | 348 | 51 | 117 | 5.3 |
Date of maximum | 152 | 174 | 161 | 155 | 8.0 |
Low pulse count | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 52.6 |
Low pulse duration | 7 | 59 | 16 | 5 | 30.8 |
High pulse count | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2.9 |
High pulse duration | 3 | 52 | 10 | 14 | 23.8 |
Rise rate | 1.10 | 2.25 | 1.70 | 1.10 | 40.0 |
Fall rate | −5.80 | −1.10 | −2.10 | −1.35 | 20.0 |
Number of reversals | 84 | 97 | 91 | 82 | 66.3 |
Reference Crop Evapotranspiration (mm) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
April | May | June | July | August | September | |
The first ten-day period | 16 | 37 | 56 | 57 | 44 | 36 |
The second ten-day period | 28 | 49 | 56 | 52 | 41 | 31 |
The third ten-day period | 33 | 53 | 57 | 49 | 40 | 21 |
Total | 77 | 139 | 169 | 158 | 125 | 88 |
Month | Ecological Water Demand (million m³) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forestland | Woodland | Spinney | Meadow Grassland | Desert Grassland | Sand Grassland | Reed Wetland | Total | |
April | 4 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 30 |
May | 10 | 5 | 4 | 36 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 82 |
June | 16 | 8 | 6 | 56 | 29 | 6 | 8 | 129 |
July | 19 | 9 | 6 | 64 | 30 | 7 | 10 | 144 |
August | 11 | 5 | 4 | 37 | 21 | 5 | 6 | 88 |
September | 6 | 3 | 2 | 20 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 48 |
Total | 66 | 32 | 24 | 227 | 115 | 26 | 31 | 521 |
Year | Coverage (%) | Height (cm) | Fresh Matter Weight (thousand kg/km²) | Dry Matter Weight (thousand kg/km²) |
---|---|---|---|---|
2013 | 90 | 52 | 90.9 | 313.5 |
2014 | 85 | 55 | 84.3 | 264.0 |
2015 | 92 | 49 | 82.4 | 291.0 |
Average in 2013–2015 | 89 | 52 | 85.9 | 289.5 |
2016 | 90 | 55 | 85.7 | 309.0 |
2017 | 91 | 54 | 94.7 | 334.5 |
2018 | 91 | 53 | 95.0 | 318.0 |
2019 | 90 | 52 | 91.4 | 327.0 |
Average in 2016–2019 | 91 | 53 | 91.7 | 322.1 |
The Lowest Ecological Lake Level (m) | The Highest Ecological Lake Level (m) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Method | Lake morphological analysis | Fish-salinity-water relationship | Habitat control | Lake morphological analysis |
Burultokay | 469.20 | 475.39 | 478.66 | 483.10 |
Jili Lake | 467.90 | 477.80 | / | 483.20 |
No Rain | Light Rain | Moderate Rain | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Level (m) | Flow (m³/s) | Water Level (m) | Flow (m³/s) | Water Level (m³/s) | Flow (m³/s) |
≤478.40 | 120 | ≤478.00 | 120 | ≤477.40 | 120 |
478.50 | 89.3 | 478.10 | 102 | 477.50 | 117 |
478.60 | 53.6 | 478.20 | 67.5 | 477.60 | 82.9 |
478.70 | 18.2 | 478.30 | 32.6 | 477.70 | 48.7 |
≥478.80 | 0 | 478.40 | 3.62 | 477.80 | 15.1 |
≥478.50 | 0 | ≥477.90 | 0 |
No Rain | Light Rain | Moderate Rain | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Level (m) | Flow (m³/s) | Water Level (m) | Flow (m³/s) | Water Level (m³/s) | Flow (m³/s) |
≤482.50 | 120 | ≤482.10 | 120 | ≤481.50 | 120 |
482.60 | 104 | 482.20 | 109 | 481.60 | 114 |
482.70 | 71.2 | 482.30 | 76.0 | 481.70 | 81.6 |
482.80 | 38.1 | 482.40 | 42.9 | 481.80 | 48.9 |
482.90 | 4.42 | 482.50 | 12.0 | 481.90 | 17.1 |
≥483.00 | 0 | ≥482.60 | 0 | ≥482.00 | 0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, D.; Zhang, S.; Wang, G.; Gu, J.; Wang, H.; Chen, X. Ecohydrological Variation and Multi-Objective Ecological Water Demand of the Irtysh River Basin. Water 2022, 14, 2876. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182876
Wang D, Zhang S, Wang G, Gu J, Wang H, Chen X. Ecohydrological Variation and Multi-Objective Ecological Water Demand of the Irtysh River Basin. Water. 2022; 14(18):2876. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182876
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Dan, Shuanghu Zhang, Guoli Wang, Jingjing Gu, Hao Wang, and Xiaoting Chen. 2022. "Ecohydrological Variation and Multi-Objective Ecological Water Demand of the Irtysh River Basin" Water 14, no. 18: 2876. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182876